All he's done is contradict an in-game mechanic description. "Bounties are anonymously posted rewards for defeating nations in war."
That it and of itself has made people uncomfortable. Even people who agree with his reasons for doing so. We have a reasonable expectation that we're all playing the game by the same explicit rules, as published on the web pages the game consists of. When I look at the Military page, I see "Each barracks can house up to 3,000 soldiers". I naturally expect that everyone else sees the same thing when logged in, and I expect that mechanic to remain the same each time I log in unless Alex posts an update.
If I were to break a major rule, like if Alex were to find out that I'm just another Shellhound multi like the rest of Guardian, I would fairly expect to be banned. But I wouldn't expect Alex to discretionally limit my soldiers to 2,500 per barracks, and I'd be just as uncomfortable to see an inconsistent approach of the game rules applied to someone else.
I think it's clear to everybody here that Alex did not foresee the bounty system used to try and slide rule-violating harassment* under the radar. He made a judgement call at that time. Whether or not that was justified is an exhausted topic. Either way, the judgement has done some amount of damage to the perception that all members of the P&W community engage with the game itself in a consistent way.
That's easy enough to repair. Either a rules amendment stating that bounty posters' anonymity is only guaranteed unless breaking in-game communication rules ( "included, but not limited to..."), or a policy that makes clear that going forward that game mechanic text is sacrosanct, or which whatever caveats he sees fit.
Just make a policy, own it and we can all move on.
*No, don't respond with whether you think it was harassment or not. Both sides of that argument have been covered in this thread. One of those sides is wrong.